LAST Friday, William Pryor became the second judicial nominee in five weeks to be placed on the bench by President Bush without confirmation in the Senate.
Senate Democrats had blocked Alabama's former attorney general and five others from taking the bench. Bush contends that the Democratic filibuster had denied Pryor a fair vote. Democrats respond that so long as Bush is handing the federal courts to the Christian right, the opposition should block the most extreme nominees.
So as he did with Charles Pickering, President Bush circumvented the opposition and performed a "recess appointment," using a seldom-employed power that allows the president to appoint judges for a year without confirmation. Though seemingly minor, the Pryor appointment strikes the latest blow to national political discourse and highlights the recent Republican strategy of achieving their goals by underhanded means.
The American political system relies heavily on accepted custom. The rules of the game encompass more than just statutes. To the Republicans, however, conventions have become mere obstacles. With this idea, they undermine the principles of fair play and consensus -- two concepts vital to civilized and fair politics.
In particular, Republicans have used tactics that, while legal, divert from more tacit parameters. The Clinton impeachment, the use of the Supreme Court to block appropriate recounts in the 2000 election, the mid-census Texas redistricting, the California gubernatorial recall -- in all these, Republicans broke unwritten rules to circumvent agreed-upon forms of debate and attempt dirty partisan power plays. Now, President Bush uses a provision initially meant to fill gaping holes in a small federal bench so he can ignore opposition and seat his most radical and divisive nominees.
Instead of "changing the tone in Washington" as he promised in 2000, Bush has embittered it. Contrasting with his brief love of judicial moderates as governor of Texas, President Bush continues to repay the Christian right for their support in the 2000 Republican primary by shamelessly politicizing the independent judiciary. His power grabs violate central principles that keep our system from devolving into pure vitriol.
The Republicans seem to consider any legal action justified. Why not exercise their constitutional ability to pack the Supreme Court with Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl? Or better yet, along those lines, they could eliminate all lower federal courts, whittle down the Supreme Court and vest total judicial power in Antonin Scalia.
The Bush administration has led Republicans in stifling traditional debate. The White House runs away from U.N. arguments it cannot win and acts alone instead. By modern standards, Bush keeps press contact to a minimum. The White House prohibits coverage of the body bags arriving from its war. Now, to quash dissent, Bush silences his opponents by recess-appointing radical judges days before Congress returns to session.
George W. Bush seems to believe that determining the best course for the country entails following a single agenda and not engaging in serious, full debate. As this election approaches, even those who agree with his policies must ask whether our nation should re-elect a proponent of "politics by any means necessary." In the long run, will America reach the best decisions with a leadership oblivious of its own fallibility and disdainful toward other viewpoints?
With the president pushing perspectives off the table, America will never benefit from a robust and civilized discourse. The pure anger many liberals feel toward the president comes not from unwise-but-expected policy moves, but from the sheer contempt opponents feel the administration directs toward them. The president's attitude inspires distrust and bewilderment, and a second term promises to amplify them. The atypical tactics (such as the filibuster) that Democrats have adopted to stop the GOP reveal the increasing ire. At this rate, four more years of Bush will only deepen the distrust on both sides.
In 2000, "changing the tone" meant keeping the rancor from grating against the public's aesthetic. But now "the tone" means court-selected presidents, recall elections, recess appointments and ignoring detractors instead of debating them. Now the tone threatens more than our ability to stomach the system. It menaces the foundations of our democratic traditions.
In 2004, America votes for more than a policy platform; we decide to make our politics more or less like siege warfare. For the sake of that discourse -- the root of democracy -- we must change the tone. Only through rejecting ruthlessness will politics lead our nation in the right direction.
Michael Slaven is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | YesterdayBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
